Board of Contract Appeals

                    General Services Administration

                         Washington, D.C. 20405

 

 

 

            _______________________________________________

 

                            January 25, 2001

            _______________________________________________

 

 

                            GSBCA 15244-RELO

 

 

                 In the Matter of WILLIAM R. THYGERSON 

 

 

        William R. Thygerson, APO Area Europe, Claimant.

 

        Elizabeth  B.   Throckmorton,  Chief,  Policy   and  Program

   Development  Division, Department  of the  Army,  Alexandria, VA,

   appearing for Department of the Army.

 

   BORWICK, Board Judge.

 

        Claimant, a civilian employee of the Department of the Army,

   filed a  claim at this  Board contesting the agency's  refusal to

   reimburse him  for the  cost of delivery  of his  household goods

   (HHG) from  non-temporary storage  to his  family s residence  in

   Huntsville, Alabama.   Claimant incurred the expenses  during his

   assignment to the United Kingdom.  

 

        After  the filing  of the  claim at  this Board,  the agency

   determined that  claimant was  entitled to  reimbursement of  the

   claimed expenses.  The agency  stated that it "will reimburse the

   claimant for  the expenses incurred  in the delivery of  the non-

   temp storage to the location in Huntsville, thus making the claim

   before the  Board moot."   We dismissed the  claim as moot,  over

   claimant s objection.   William  R. Thygerson,  GSBCA 15244-RELO,

   00-2 BCA   30,963.

 

        Claimant filed for reconsideration,  arguing that "unless  a

   definitive  decision   [by   this  Board]   is  published,   Army

   transportation  representatives  at Huntsville  (and  potentially

   elsewhere)  will continue to  deny overseas employees  a valuable

   and useful entitlement."  

 

        On November  27, the agency  advised this Board that  it had

   reimbursed claimant for  the claimed amount, but withheld sums to

   offset a travel advance that had not been paid.

 

        This case is moot.   A case is moot when  the controversy is

   no longer  alive because a  plaintiff lacks a  legally cognizable

   interest  in the  outcome.   Powell  v. McCormack,  395 U.S.  486

   (1969); see also  Attorney General of New Jersey  v. First Family

   Mortgage  Corp.  of  Florida, 487  U.S.  1213  (1988) (underlying

   mortgage  foreclosure dispute  ended  when debt  was  satisfied);

   Tiverton Board of License Comm rs v. Pastore, 469 U.S. 238 (1985)

   (respondent  went out  of business  and  no longer  had claim  to

   press); Aikens  v. California,  406 U.S.  813 (1972)  (petitioner

   obtained   complete   relief   under   state   statute,   mooting

   constitutional claim concerning death penalty).   

 

 

        It is also the  case that a defendant s  voluntary cessation

   of  an alleged  illegal conduct does  not deprive a  court of its

   power to determine the legality of the practice lest the party be

   left free  to return to its  old ways.   Friends of the  Earth v.

   Laidlaw Environmental Services  Inc., 120 S.Ct. 693  (2000); City

   of Mesquite v. Aladdin s Castle Inc., 455 U.S. 283 (1983).   This

   rule  applies, however,  only to conduct  which might  affect the

   opposing party's  own interests.  Here, the agency has reimbursed

   claimant,  thereby   extinguishing  the  claim   and  eliminating

   claimant s legally cognizable interest in this matter.

 

        The only purpose claimant cites for seeking a Board decision

   is  to direct  the agency to  modify its practices  so that other

   employees will be  paid for  similar claims in  the future.   The

   Board  may consider only  concrete claims by  specific employees,

   however; we do not rule  on hypothetical claims which may or  may

   not arise.  Consequently, the agency's payment of Mr. Thygerson's

   claim ends our involvement in this matter.

 

        Claimant s motion for reconsideration is denied.

 

 

 

                                 __________________________

                                 ANTHONY S. BORWICK

                                 Board Judge